LaMute v. New York

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that Congress did not intend the absurd result that “the very people who committed the unlawful interceptions” be shielded by the Wiretap Act from the consequences of their wrongdoing
• concluding that Congress did not intend the absurd result that “the very people who committed the unlawful interceptions” be shielded by the Wiretap Act from the consequences of their wrongdoing
• holding that defendants are not entitled to suppress the illegally recorded tapes in their crimi- nal proceedings because they waived their privacy in the con- versations by causing them to be taped unlawfully
• noting that nonconsenting defendant’s claim would have been different had he been a customer of the gambling business rather than a coconspirator
• using a statute “protect[ing] the victims of unlawful interceptions . . . to shield the very people who committed the unlawful interceptions from the consequences of their wrongdoing”
• departing from plain language where it would allow defendant to shield himself presented with the question of whether to read this same clean hands exception into § 2515 and have reached conflicting conclusions. See United States v. Murdock, 63 F.3d 1391 (6th Cir. 1995

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).